Anonymous wrote:

New Zealand's first pornography report finds ‘problematic’ amount of coercion (The Guardian)

Of course, it is problematic for some -- I never said otherwise. But not for all. Because something is problematic for some doesn't mean we ban it for all, or insist that it's bad for all. Cars kill people, but we don't call them evil. Because in the hands of responsible and careful drivers, we think it's OK to let them have that choice. Same with porn.


If you want you can find more examples on your own. Why do you ask me to give you examples of the negative effects of porn?

You're making a fake argument by pretending I said porn has no ill effects on anybody. I didn't. You're making that up to "win" an argument -- but it's not the argument you're having with me.


People ENJOY smoking tobacco. They smoke tobacco voluntarily. Does it make it a healthy habit?

You keep making a false comparison. Unlike cars and porn, which not only harm SOME people, but KILL them, while they are perfectly safe and NOT unhealthy for many people, tobacco is not medically considered harmful. I've made that point already, and you seem to have trouble grasping that your comparison is fake.


Stress relief - there are some other ways that relieve stress in a better way.

Sure, if you choose to relieve your stress some other way, all the power to you. But it's none of your business how someone else does it as long as it harms nobody.


However porn is a business that has negative impacts on actors as well as viewers. The article does not address that.

Sure, just like cars, they have negative impacts on drivers when they crash, as well as bystanders. But if you're trying to say it has negative impacts on ALL actors and viewers, it would be a FALSE statement. I suppose you didn't bother looking up Nina Hartley on Wiki, or reading about the movie "The Sessions" with Helen Hunt.